www.ditl.org

(the very same who, when questioned about the Tet Offensive, told me that Tet was a region of Viet Nam. At least I knew enough to call her on that one.)

The sound you are now hearing is me banging my head against the desk.

What. A. Moron.

Rochey wrote:

(the very same who, when questioned about the Tet Offensive, told me that Tet was a region of Viet Nam. At least I knew enough to call her on that one.)

The sound you are now hearing is me banging my head against the desk.

What. A. Moron.

With the strength of the teachers' unions in the U.S. teachers are protected by tenure - usually after three years' service. That means that unless a teacher physically abuses a student, it is UNIMAGINABLY difficult to fire him. The result? The teacher I just mentioned had the same job security and pay plan as a truly insightful, dedicated (and accurate) teacher.

You'd think not knowing basic facts about what I assume to be a very important part of a US history course would be grounds for kicking him out.
Hell, over here we go into quite a bit of detail on Vietnam. I'm actualy just after finishing up the Vietnam section of the course with my fifth year students this week. And yes, it does mention where the Tet Offensive got it's name from.

One would think...

And I had no doubt that you don't just make %$@# up to teach your students.

No, I don't. Nor do I know of any of my collegues who do so, either.

Out of curiosity, is this at all linked to that "No Child Left Behind" policy we were talking about a few weeks ago, or is this a completely different bit of idiocy?

The Vietnam war and the Tet offensive was touched on briefly during the first year of my History Degree, as one of a series of case studies to teach us university historiographical methods as opposed to school ones. We learnt of course, about the significance of the date. However, the lecturer, a fairly respected specialist in American history, did make some mistakes: He referred to the AC 47 gunship as a helicopter! As this is a common mistake among people who don't go to the window when they hear an aircraft engine (when the Americans deploy a Spectre gunship, it is usually referred to as a helicopter in the press) I decided it did not mean he was necessarily incompetent.
I hugely enjoyed that little case study, as my previous knowledge of the Vietnam war was pretty much that it lasted twenty years and America lost, plus a model makers knowledge of the hardware.

Enkidu wrote:However, the lecturer, a fairly respected specialist in American history, did make some mistakes: He referred to the AC 47 gunship as a helicopter! As this is a common mistake among people who don't go to the window when they hear an aircraft engine (when the Americans deploy a Spectre gunship, it is usually referred to as a helicopter in the press) I decided it did not mean he was necessarily incompetent.

How the hell can you mistake Puff for a helecopter?

Incompetant high school teachers are one thing, but if a university history lecturer doesn't know what he's talking about then I have serious concerns about the quality of the entire US education system. Especially if this particular idiot was "fairly respected".

This was in the sceptred Isle. I think if someone doesn't have a interest in military hardware or aircraft in general it is a forgivable error. When someone reads "gunship" they often seem to assume it is a term that just refers to helicoptors.

Simply misinterpreting the use of the term "gunship" I can accept - if the type weren't specified I'd assume it was a helicopter being discussed.

It's that fact that a supposedly knowledgeable lecturer was describing a specific model of fixed-wing aircraft as a helicopter that I have a problem with.

Out of curiosity, is this at all linked to that "No Child Left Behind" policy we were talking about a few weeks ago, or is this a completely different bit of idiocy?

This program has done little other then show how badly we can fail. Not only did we make a program that was a useful in schools as rum. We also changed and down graded our national standards to make it look like it was working and in fact did even more harm. Again, we thank you Bush jr for your help with our nations troubles. For only you could take such a thing and make it many times worse and all for nothing.

Rochey wrote:No, I don't. Nor do I know of any of my collegues who do so, either.

Out of curiosity, is this at all linked to that "No Child Left Behind" policy we were talking about a few weeks ago, or is this a completely different bit of idiocy?

Actually, this was way back in history when I was in high school, well before "No Child Left Behind." However, the union-constructed idea of tenure was very firmly in place. "No Child Left Behind" really come out in practice as a way of teaching to the lowest common denominator, teaching to the tests, and avoiding differentiated instruction.

Ah, okay.

Out of curiosity, is there any chance of that idiotic policy getting thrown out anytime soon?

Seafort wrote:It's that fact that a supposedly knowledgeable lecturer was describing a specific model of fixed-wing aircraft as a helicopter that I have a problem with.

Well, he could have just been making an off-hand comment about the sort of military tech deployed in Vietnam. He probably heard 'AC 47 gunship' and interpreted it as a helicpoter.
Also, being respected in the field of US history doesn't mean he needs to have good knowledge of their military tech and the codes assigned to them all.

Mikey wrote:...avoiding differentiated instruction.

This is why I quit school in the ninth grade. No personal interaction, no different methods for individuals. I'm a kinesthetic learner, and they really had no methods set up to teach someone like me.

If you don't already know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthetic_learning

Well, there still has to be some semblance of semblance in a classroom setting; but as a literacy coach (and former classroom teacher) my wife and her supervisors demand differentiated instruction from the teachers under their watch. Unless there is a school system somewhere with a 1:1 student to teacher ratio, it is the only way to teach 100% of the students. Otherwise, either the bottom third get left in the dust; or, more commonly, the top third get bored, remain unchallenged and untapped, and end up failing to realize their potential.

Mikey wrote:...or, more commonly, the top third get bored, remain unchallenged and untapped, and end up failing to realize their potential.

You got that right, brother. That pretty much sums up my school career. Being exceedingly poor didn't help much either. Why try as hard as you can to get nowhere? All I did was save myself a lot of wasted effort and the school system a lot of trouble.